Training the 'Workforce of the Future': Insights from Work-Based Higher
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Inez von Weitershausen, PhD, Massachusetts Institute of Technology - [email protected] DRAFT - Please do not circulate without author’s permission - Training the ‘Workforce of the Future’: Insights from Work-Based Higher Education Programs in Germany and the United States Summary In the face of rapid technological change, industrialized economies around the world share concerns about a growing mismatch between the supply and demand of qualified workers. Debates about how to effectively prepare the ‘workforce of the future’ have brought to the forefront different approaches to fostering collaboration between companies, individuals, and public actors in the education and professional development space. Pairing data on the evolution and design of Work Based Higher Education (WBHE) programs in the United States and in Germany with insights from two in-depth case studies, we show how a shared idea - the ‘integration of theory and practice’- manifests in both countries. Focusing on the responsibilities and activities of companies and higher education institutions (HEI) across four dimensions - ‘Admission and Recruitment’ (A&R), ‘Curriculum Design and Renewal’ (CD&R), ‘Instruction and Training’ (I&T), and ‘Assessment and Examination’ (A&E) - we find that, in Germany, the influence of industry is both stronger and more regulated than in the US, where individual academic institutions have greater control of and more freedom in determining the specificities of collaborations. These differences result in diverging levels of comparability and standardization of programs which, in turn, influence both countries’ ability to train the ‘workforce of the future’. As digital technologies and automation increasingly modify job content and transform the nature of entire occupations skill requirements, too, are changing. With numerous studies finding that the ‘work of the future’ will increasingly require individuals to perform ‘traditional’ tasks with the assistance of software robots, and other machines that are powered by artificial intelligence, experts across different industries see an increased demand for workers to acquire digital skills and develop an innovation- friendly mindset along with a continued need of excellent technical and social skills (Cedefop 2018, Cedefop and Eurofund 2018, McKinsey 2018, WEF 2018). As demographic change may further constrain employers’ access to highly-qualified individuals (Berthold, C. et al. 2009), they are increasingly calling for action that is both effective and scalable ways. In this context, work-based learning (WBL) has received substantial attention. While particularly successful vocational education training (VET) systems like those of Germany or Switzerland have caught the eye of decision-makers around the world for quite some time (Brown and Lorenz 2017), there is an increasing awareness of the need to also reform traditional College education with a view of making it more relevant to the workplace. Responding to this demand, this paper provides an in-depth analysis of work-based higher education (WBHE), a form of training that is characterized by the integration of theory and practice through the collaboration of companies and higher education institutions (HEI). While WBHE programs are not a new phenomenon and often form an integral part of a country’s education system, little is known about their specific design and implementation. This paper addresses this shortcoming by focusing on two illustrative examples of WBHE programs - one in the United States and one in Germany - with view of the ways in which they organize 1 Inez von Weitershausen, PhD, Massachusetts Institute of Technology - [email protected] DRAFT - Please do not circulate without author’s permission - the collaboration of different actors with regard to integrating theory and practice. Looking at four dimensions - ‘Admission and Recruitment’ (A&R), ‘Curriculum Design and Renewal’ (CD&R), ‘Instruction and Training’ (I&T), and ‘Assessment and Examination’ (A&E) – we find that the co-op degree programs offered by Wentworth Institute of Technology (WIT) in Boston, Massachusetts, are characterized by a strong academic influence. The Duales Studium (dual study program) at the Deutsche Hochschule Baden-Wuerttemberg (Cooperative State University Baden-Wuerttemberg), by contrast, is shaped by a more equal partnership with industry. This practice leads to a stronger focus industry- specific knowledge and skills in Germany, and the promotion of more general, academic skills in the US. As the influence of industry in Germany is not only stronger, but also more regulated than in the US, we also observe higher levels of comparability and standardization of programs which, in turn, influence general awareness of and attitudes towards WBHE. By contrast, in the US, where co-op programs vary highly among institutions, it takes significantly more effort by companies and individuals to navigate the WBHE space. This, in turn, may result in a missed opportunity to use WBHE as an effective way to train the ‘workforce of the future’. Method and case-study selection To illustrate key characteristics and differences of co-op programs in the US and dual study programs in Germany, the study draws on the large body of literature on different systems of skill formation and educational governance. The latter identifies the systemic and governance-related differences that distinguish Germany’s collective skill formation system and the US’ liberal one (see e.g. Graf 2017, Busemeyer and Trampusch 2012, Estevez-Abe, Iversen and Soskice 2001) and underlines how educational policies fit within the overarching framework of industrial relations Thelen 2014, 2004; Hall and Soskice 2001). Our analysis, by contrast, suggests that a focus on national differences alone is insufficient in explaining differences in the organization and implementation of higher education at the institutional level as it occurs not only between, but also within countries. The analytical framework presented here therefore integrates insights into the broader differences between the German and American education system with observations of how different HEI chose to organize themselves and operate under a given framework. Reflecting this approach, we draw on carefully collected descriptive material at the HEI and firm- level as well as on publicly available data on education and workforce development in both countries. In light of the fact that access to such data was considerably better in Germany, where organizations like the Bundesinstitut fuer Berufliche Bildung (BIBB) or the Hochschulrektorenkonferenz (HRK) systematically collect and administer relevant information1, we chose to complement our findings with insights from two case studies: Cooperative State University Baden-Wuerttemberg (Duale Hochschule Baden- Wuerttemberg, DHBW) in Stuttgart, Germany, and Wentworth Institute of Technology (WIT) in Boston, USA. To identify relevant processes and governing frameworks at these two leading practice- 1 In addition to data bases such as AusbildungPlus (BIBB) and Hochschulkompass (HRK), other relevant sources of information in Germany include the Bildungsbericht by the Leibniz-Institut für Bildungsforschung und Bildungsinformation, and the Akkreditierungsrat. Meanwhile in the US, it is mostly participating universities themselves which collect information on their activities. 2 Inez von Weitershausen, PhD, Massachusetts Institute of Technology - [email protected] DRAFT - Please do not circulate without author’s permission - oriented HEIs, we collected information about how they organize cooperation with industry through internal and external reports2 as well as 52 semi-structured interviews with students, alumni, faculty and members of the administration of both HEI. While we stress that the practices of DHBW and WIT are not representative of the entirety of WBHE in each country3 and differ in significant ways4, they both can serve as powerful illustrations of how dual study programs and co-op programs are typically organized and implemented in the different contexts. The two HEI furthermore lend themselves for a structured and systematic comparison of their WBHE programs in light of the fact that both institutions are former trade schools which, over time, were granted ‘university’-status and became recognized as innovative actors in the design and implementation of compulsory WBHE programs. Moreover, they both have excellent relations with local industry, and are committed to improving their respective communities by providing a solid education to individuals from a wide range of backgrounds. Finally, both institutions offer undergraduate and graduate programs which combine on-the-job training and traditional academic studies in the STEM field5, an area which is said to provide particularly attractive opportunities for future employment in either country. In the following section, we will provide a brief overview of the German and US WBHE system, before elaborating on the specifics of each institutions. 1. Work-based higher education in Germany and the United States Germany Dual study programs were first developed in the early 1970s through initiatives by powerful corporations in the South-West of the country (Lehr 2015) and in response to demographic changes that also affected the education space: After an increase in new high schools in the 1960s and 70s, Germany faced a growing number of graduates who wished to pursue a higher education degree. This raised questions about the appropriate